Agreed but the Times also have a strong source at LFC. Panja has been well ahead of the game on the Pinto story as well. It's interesting that the New York Times (not the UK media) is so on top of these stories and I think that tells its own story.Tariq Panja is getting most of the leaks. Panja worked at the MEN and had a good source at the swamp. Now he's getting stories from a senior source at UEFA. John Holmes, let alone Sherlock, could work that out.
This was my initial thought.
Shouldn’t those quotes should be attributed to UEFA and not CAS?
And didn’t CAS call the leaks “worrisome”?
So essentially, the fact the BBC have completely misquoted CAS, they’re either deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order to damage City’s reputation, or they’re just incompetent morons?
Read it on the way home from work this evening.Just read the response from CAS. It is interesting it eems to say that until City have exhausted all remedies provided by UEFA ie the next Chamber then they cannot rule. But they have pointed out to UEFA that they had better deal with City's concerns because that wont go well should City have to go back to CAS.
They wont rule on damages yet as they dont think City suffered irreperable harm being referred to the AC but if that chamber do come against City then one can imagine the damages claim can be heard and that will be a big figure so UEFA have got plenty to think about
It is clear that CAS do think that City have a case regarding the leaks but have thrown that back to the AC so lets see what they do with the information
They really have. Apart from the pressure from the known suspects, I think they are so far up their own arses that they think they are untouchable. Their incompetence will catch up on them eventually.UEFA fucked up.
That's a great summary but I think there is also a huge fundamental problem for UEFA which is that the whole allegation is based on stolen emails supplied by Ruis Pinto the hacker who is now facing a huge jail sentence for extortion. We are contesting the content of the emails anyway but is it likely that UEFA has even seen them given that the Pinto cache is key evidence in an ongoing criminal case? Never mind the corrupt investigation process what evidence do UEFA actually have to increase our punishment for something that happened seven years ago?Read again and a few more bits worth highlighting.
UEFA reopened the case into us following leaks from Der Spiegel, Reuters and Mediapart. That was the basis for them feeling able to do so desire our previous agreement and the time limit on reopening.
CAS feel that our allegation that UEFA themselves, or an associated and interested party with conflicting interests to those of Manchester City, facilitated these leaks, to enable them to reopen their case, is not without merit.
They also state that the Chief Investigator's comments on dismissing our concerns when raised out of hand were puzzling. That is because he or his organisation were accused of leaking information (the articles states specifically from a UEFA source) and thus the whole process was broken, and he didn't blink an eye, or start an internal investigation or even refer to any processes to prevent such circumstances. He was confident enough to just dismiss it out of hand, without explaining or asking questions of his own organisation, to what is actually a pretty serious allegation.
The biggest issue for us, and the CAS document states this specifically, is that we have not presented sufficient evidence that the leaks came from UEFA. Indeed, we contradicted ourselves by saying that the leaks could influence the decision, yet the decision was already known and leaked.
So, what happens next?
UEFA claim they have not yet made a decision. In fact, they claim they have not refused to pause the investigation as city requested. So there could be a pause whilst the leaks are investigated.
City's claim for damages and a full investigation into UEFA and the leaks is inadmissible by CAS. But that is because CAS is the wrong forum in which to do this. City could go to an Ordinary Arbitration Proceeding to force this action.
UEFA could come to a decision and pass judgement, any ban or fine likely to be challenged by city, so again back to CAS. But this time CAS would have to rule one way or the other as the AC would have competed it's role.
UEFA could drop the investigation due to lack of evidence, or impose a suspended ban or fine. They could therefore claim any leak was therefore evidently false, and discourage an independent investigation or referral to the OAP. But they'd have egg on their face given that their own investigation found enough to ask the AC to sit and rule on a suitable punishment for City.
Edit.. oh, and one last option. City ask for a settlement and take a reduced punishment. Hardly worth mentioning.
Or simpler still. UEFA haven’t made a final ruling yet so we (CAS) can’t rule on this until the AC pass judgement.....I will try. I assume you know about the original FFP ruling on City. This document noted that City paid the fine without accepting any wrongdoing. It then notes that UEFA charged City after the football leaks. Because UEFA started leaking decisions to the press, 5 separate leaks are detailed by City and reproduced in this document City felt they had to go to CAS if for no other reason than to stop the leaks which were damaging Manchester City's good name. Whilst CAS have stated they cannot rule on it as City have yet to be punished they have told UEFA to stop all leaks and if they don't they are fucked. The last bit is deffo laymans terms but that is what they mean.
Yes.Weren’t they ruled inadmissible because no judgement had been reached and not because they were without foundation?